tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post3353606974449517196..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Morality, Living Art, and the Undead MuseBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-55272188079164438202014-02-23T10:26:12.963-05:002014-02-23T10:26:12.963-05:00Yes, I think our art has an existentially benefici...Yes, I think our art has an existentially beneficial effect, but the effect is best achieved when the artists don't think in instrumental terms. This is the difference between commercial and fine art. Advertisers have no contact with a muse and they're just painting by numbers, as it were. <br /><br />But if we're talking about art appreciation rather than creation, then I think the aesthetic value is lost when we think about the art's utility or purpose. We have to look at the thing objectively and see it as being complete in itself, as opposed to seeing it as a means to an end. That's sort of like "selfless contemplation," yes. This is the aesthetic attitude. <br /><br />So art in the broad sense, meaning everything artificial that we do, performs its functions of giving us a sense of the sublime and of reshaping the wilderness to our benefit, but to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of art, we have to ignore its utility and lose our self in contemplating the art object's more fundamental uselessness. <br /><br />You see, even our artificial worlds are metaphysically natural and thus part of the undead god, and so our victories over nature are at best tragically heroic. Nature wins in the end, which means our purposes will be for naught. When we treat something as an art object, we appreciate its undeadness and its inhuman completeness and uselessness to us, and so we have a hint of the undeadness in everything.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-8006535137199644492014-02-23T10:15:51.649-05:002014-02-23T10:15:51.649-05:00The argument here implies that only the theistic w...The argument here implies that only the theistic west and middle east has ever had morality. You are obviously dedicated to theism, but the claim that it is necessary for morality is borderline racist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-42504167511932119642014-02-22T21:37:33.815-05:002014-02-22T21:37:33.815-05:00I'm not sure where I say that art is for "...<i>I'm not sure where I say that art is for "selfless contemplation."</i><br /><br />You don't use those words, but the idea is there, I think:<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br /><b>Paintings, songs, novels, and dances may have various uses, but as long as we’re evaluating them from an instrumental point of view, reflecting on the utility of their results, we’re not thinking of them as artworks. Indeed, an artwork is an art object, in that the art must be viewed as something that’s uselessly complete in itself.</b><br /><br />But in your view art is useful indeed, to deal with existential angst. It has a purpose to fulfill.Ardegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06084510248484446401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-46521132410545468872014-02-21T12:39:34.649-05:002014-02-21T12:39:34.649-05:00I plan to write soon on this very question, becaus...I plan to write soon on this very question, because it's come up a lot in the comments on my recent articles. There are two distinctions to keep in mind: the metaphysical one between natural and supernatural, and the higher-level, emergent one between natural and artificial. I mean to affirm both that we're perfectly natural in the metaphysical sense and that we're unnatural in the sense of being anomalous creators of artificiality (microcosms, culture, autonomous actions, objective knowledge, etc) in the second sense. There's a lot to say here, though, so I hope you'll check out that article. I'll likely write this up not in my next article (on theism and celebrity) but in the one after that. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-15814186580153012812014-02-21T12:33:04.887-05:002014-02-21T12:33:04.887-05:00Well, avenging ourselves against nature is at best...Well, avenging ourselves against nature is at best tragically heroic, as I say. It's useless in that nature doesn't care either way. But the pragmatist's standard of utility isn't appropriate when judging a life path at the existential level. We're not counting beans here. We're considering how to salvage our dignity, given natural life's absurdity. My answer is that we become godlike beings that create microcosms to irrationally spite nature's more monstrous, inhumane creativity.<br /><br />I'm not sure where I say that art is for "selfless contemplation." I don't think I say that in this article or in "Life is Art." Are you talking about the link between objectivity and the aesthetic perspective which sees everything as art?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11050239317384821112014-02-21T09:03:39.817-05:002014-02-21T09:03:39.817-05:00The nature/human dichotomy doesn't work for me...The nature/human dichotomy doesn't work for me. Humans ARE nature, world, material processes. Literally 100%. Just as brain is 100% body. You can say nature can't choose, whereas humans can, but humans are becoming in the same basic way, albeit with greater complexity. A human self is simply the epicenter of a particular kind of world system. A very complex kind that uses abstractions as part of its becoming process. The difference between humans and everything else is not that world just does what it does randomly whereas we exercise control and do things for reasons, it's that we are at the epicenter of a particular bit of world as its happening. We are world of a particular kind at a particular location. And because we are there, we can steer world's unfolding a bit. Not as much as most people think, but a decent amount. <br /><br />If you said that we're the first bit of world that watches itself and gives a certain kind of uniquely human damn, I could get on board with that. We can be responsible for creating new world, sure. Defeating world, though? Every human victory is a world victory, isn't it? Everything we do is co-opted, just as it's happening. Devin Lendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10122506454377940662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2560574746147899952014-02-20T18:05:56.839-05:002014-02-20T18:05:56.839-05:00First you say art is about selfless contemplation,...First you say art is about selfless contemplation, and then you want to use art to avenge against blind natural forces. Looks like a contradiction to me. Or is it the case that to avenge natural forces is useless?Ardegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06084510248484446401noreply@blogger.com